The future of Starfire: Questionnaire

[coldsteel]

I personally think that SA is far too much like business accounting software that I've used, and is entirely non-intuitive (ie. I don't think its easy to use).

Not trying to be inflammatory (and I'll happily delete this post if you feel I am), but I have to ask. How much of that is from usage with or without the Tutorial help and how much is a (sorry again) knee-jerk reaction to Steve? I agree it's drab and utilitarian, but, again, it zogging works.

[mavikfelna]

Starfire Online never handled many of the rules well, but it was good for running games with well separated groups. I've used it since it's earliest days and it still never got very intuitive for me. Ship design and information handling are almost impossible. I always had to refer to hand written notes to figure out what I was doing.

Starfire Assistant was always relatively easy to use for me and it handled the rules well. It sucked for group play.

Shipyard is a good program with a few irritating quirks. Mostly not being able to set a target size of the unit so your engine size keeps screwing up. But really good for ship design over all.

There have been some great system generation programs over the years but they've only been good for paper printout and probably aren't that flexible if you're trying to do anything outside of basic sys gen.

What I'd really like to see is a program that can generate a whole universe, which can be uploaded into a management program which can be setup to be accessed through a web interface. Players could download their data to a local client and have access to good reporting and ship building tools and some ability to run simulations against data they have and then upload their turn orders and then have the SM be able to look at and manipulate all the data, run the turn, and maybe even fight the battles, or dump the data to an external resolver that the players can then log into and fight out.

How realistic any of this is is outside of my ability to say, I don't program at all. But it's what I'd like to see.

--Mav

[krenshala]

Just to weigh in on the topic ... I've tried both SA and SO to an equal extent, and without having seen a tutorial they were both equally obscure. Of course, I'm the crazy type that comes up with own "utility" for things like this so I'm probably not the best judge of what is a "good" app.

[Club]

I must state that I beleive the single most valuable piece of software you could produce would be tactical starfire, online, networked, or pass-the-file. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how practical that would be. Every turn would take many data inputs - one for each initiative hit in movement, and then again in combat, for a total of up to 20 inputs per turn per player for some turns. In a input-submission scenario this could take forever to actually run a game unless both individuals arranged a time when they were both at the computer.

The upside is that the sort of people who play starfire in the first place are also the sort willing to work for their fun.

[Delete rant about instant gratification crowd of gamers these days - I'm too young to talk like that]

[Xveers]

I must state that I believe the single most valuable piece of software you could produce would be tactical starfire, online, networked, or pass-the-file. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how practical that would be. Every turn would take many data inputs - one for each initiative hit in movement, and then again in combat, for a total of up to 20 inputs per turn per player for some turns. In a input-submission scenario this could take forever to actually run a game unless both individuals arranged a time when they were both at the computer.

The upside is that the sort of people who play starfire in the first place are also the sort willing to work for their fun.

One option that could be done would be to make movement simultaneous: you both plot your maneuver, and then they get executed. With firing, do up for each ship/datagroup say two or three fire plans, based on some simple logic IE "1) Target all weapons on ship X, if Ship X = dead then 2) Target Da on gunboat squadrons C and R, and Rc on Ship Y" for example. Full Thrust Java does something similar to this, and it allows people to play Full Thrust online at a reasonable pace.

This can reduce your operations to only two decision cycles per turn, with an online hub or host computer running the end of turn cleanup (engine damage, reports on streaming, DF fluctuations etc).

[aramis]

Simultaneous plotted movement was an option in 2E. Made for some interesting play. Slower, FTF, but not much.

Heck, even shooting can be done plotted. Plot your shooting order and targets, and how many of what fires. If M_ is used, lost systems are unfired left to right on the plot line... and W and W_ have to add r or g for mode, using better to hit chance if not noted.

just work down the list, and skip ships with no weapons left or whose target is already missing.

[Cralis]

Oooh I like hearing ideas for this. Working on tactical starfire is a little ways off, but it is something we want to get done.

Now about the hows: we can always just do it the way we do in the game:

roll initiative
you move, I move, until all moves are done
I shoot, you shoot, until all shots are done
upkeep choices

Other options?

Back in the '90s we played a lot of games where movement was plotted and simultaneous. Of course, we played SFB and that was the method of the day for that game. So it wasn't a stretch. This is definitely a possibility.

You could do the same thing with combat as well. I know the rules currently allow you to take "some shots" and choose what to do next, but realistically your ship will have shot everything before any sensor/scanner reports will see what happened (or not). So having someone make all combat choices simultaneously would require more planning. It would also force tactical decisions - does my battleship group shoot at 6 corvettes and maybe kill all of them? Or does it shoot at 3 corvettes and guarantee the kills?

And incidentally, it would make the turns go faster.

I'm curious whether people would play the game like that?

[krenshala]

I would definitely enjoy playing plotted movement and firing for tactical battles. But then, as I listed in another thread, I tend to do extra work because I can, despite simpler rules existing in the game.

[aramis]

Oooh I like hearing ideas for this. Working on tactical starfire is a little ways off, but it is something we want to get done.

Now about the hows: we can always just do it the way we do in the game:

roll initiative
you move, I move, until all moves are done
I shoot, you shoot, until all shots are done
upkeep choices

Other options?

Back in the '90s we played a lot of games where movement was plotted and simultaneous. Of course, we played SFB and that was the method of the day for that game. So it wasn't a stretch. This is definitely a possibility.

You could do the same thing with combat as well. I know the rules currently allow you to take "some shots" and choose what to do next, but realistically your ship will have shot everything before any sensor/scanner reports will see what happened (or not). So having someone make all combat choices simultaneously would require more planning. It would also force tactical decisions - does my battleship group shoot at 6 corvettes and maybe kill all of them? Or does it shoot at 3 corvettes and guarantee the kills?

And incidentally, it would make the turns go faster.

Keep in mind: what is gained in individual turn times by not bothering with you-move-I-move-repeat is going to be partially lost to wasted fire allocations.
With plotted movement, all movement can be simultaneous due to the turn structure, as there is no interaction left during movement.

Fire, however, is interactive in stranger ways... since damage is immediate.
I can't fire what's already been destroyed, even if destroyed this turn.
In normal play, if my intended target is aready destroyed before this ship shoots, I can shoot a different target. (in plotted, that fire is simply lost... unless a contingency system is in place, but that adds complexity)
In plotted fire with multiplex tracking, I need to account for loss order; that is, if I lose 1 of 3 W's, and had allocated 1 to 1 target, and 2 to another, which one gets dropped?
If I have a ship destroyed before it fires, I should be able to drop it.

A set of fire orders might be:
ES1 -> CA1 2xWg
ES2+ES3+ES4 -> CA1 6xW
CA2 -> CA2 4xF
CA1 -> CA1 2xF -> ES1 1xWr

Just work down the list on each pulse... the "Giving the Initiative Roll Teeth" option becomes even nastier if one doesn't let fire be redirected. It lengthens the game by a turn or more, but reduces turn times.

I personally don't think contingency is worth the extra time, effort, and rules bulk. Let alone the writing.

[Crucis]

Oooh I like hearing ideas for this. Working on tactical starfire is a little ways off, but it is something we want to get done.

Now about the hows: we can always just do it the way we do in the game:

roll initiative
you move, I move, until all moves are done
I shoot, you shoot, until all shots are done
upkeep choices

Other options?

Back in the '90s we played a lot of games where movement was plotted and simultaneous. Of course, we played SFB and that was the method of the day for that game. So it wasn't a stretch. This is definitely a possibility.

You could do the same thing with combat as well. I know the rules currently allow you to take "some shots" and choose what to do next, but realistically your ship will have shot everything before any sensor/scanner reports will see what happened (or not). So having someone make all combat choices simultaneously would require more planning. It would also force tactical decisions - does my battleship group shoot at 6 corvettes and maybe kill all of them? Or does it shoot at 3 corvettes and guarantee the kills?

And incidentally, it would make the turns go faster.

Keep in mind: what is gained in individual turn times by not bothering with you-move-I-move-repeat is going to be partially lost to wasted fire allocations.
With plotted movement, all movement can be simultaneous due to the turn structure, as there is no interaction left during movement.

Fire, however, is interactive in stranger ways... since damage is immediate.
I can't fire what's already been destroyed, even if destroyed this turn.
In normal play, if my intended target is aready destroyed before this ship shoots, I can shoot a different target. (in plotted, that fire is simply lost... unless a contingency system is in place, but that adds complexity)
In plotted fire with multiplex tracking, I need to account for loss order; that is, if I lose 1 of 3 W's, and had allocated 1 to 1 target, and 2 to another, which one gets dropped?
If I have a ship destroyed before it fires, I should be able to drop it.

A set of fire orders might be:
ES1 -> CA1 2xWg
ES2+ES3+ES4 -> CA1 6xW
CA2 -> CA2 4xF
CA1 -> CA1 2xF -> ES1 1xWr

Just work down the list on each pulse... the "Giving the Initiative Roll Teeth" option becomes even nastier if one doesn't let fire be redirected. It lengthens the game by a turn or more, but reduces turn times.

I personally don't think contingency is worth the extra time, effort, and rules bulk. Let alone the writing.

Wait a sec, Aramis.... It seems to me that if all fire has to be plotted ahead of time, and you cannot really change firing orders on the fly, this is sort of saying that all fire is happening at the same time. And if this is the case, then it seems that all fire should resolve its damage, but not apply that damage until all fire has been resolved, at which time all damage is applied at the same time.

Of course, this would really weaken initiative. But then again, it seems that the very concept of initiative is sort of questionable if ships and fleets are required to plot movement and firing orders and there's no changing those movement or firing orders on the fly.

I do suppose that there could be allowances in plotted movement orders for things like "close on ship X", or "run away from ship X", or "hold the current range", etc., etc., though that would seem to add a layer of complexity to movement processing, as it would require the computer to do some decision making, rather than follow a strictly laid-out course.